Wakilii

Birungi v Kibuuka (HCCS 514 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 178 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant (with refund order) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract heard ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Suit largely dismissed with order for refund of deposit with interest

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

In a suit for breach of contract for sale of 3.5 acres of land, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove breach where payment of the purchase price was incomplete and there was no clear evidence the defendant failed to perform any promise. The sale agreement was ambiguous regarding the payment timeframe. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that his obligation to pay the balance was contingent upon any condition to be fulfilled by the defendant. However, as the transaction did not crystallize, the defendant was ordered to refund the deposit of UGX 22,000,000 with interest at 18% per annum.

Outcome

Suit largely dismissed with order for refund of deposit with interest

Facts

The plaintiff purchased 3.5 acres from the defendant for UGX 49,000,000 under a sale agreement dated April 10, 2015. The plaintiff paid UGX 22,000,000 in three instalments: UGX 6,500,000 on April 10, 2015, UGX 13,500,000 on May 2, 2015, and UGX 2,000,000 on March 27, 2016. The parties agreed to have a lawyer draft a main agreement before the end of April 2015. After April 2016, the defendant became inaccessible. The defendant's agent later informed the plaintiff that the price had increased to UGX 80,000,000 per acre. The defendant subdivided the suit land into nearly 50 plots. The defendant was served with court process but did not file a defence, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the contract of sale that he entered into with the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies he seeks.

Orders

  • The defendant Andrew Benon Kibuuka is ordered to refund to the plaintiff Birungi Masesane the sum of UGX 22,000,000 paid in respect of the suit land formerly comprised in Busiro Block 511 Plot 16 at Kamunyi Mako-Kasanje.
  • The defendant shall, within forty-five (45) days from the date of this judgment, refund to the plaintiff the sum of UGX 22,000,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, calculated from March 27, 2016, until the date payment is made in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded 40% of the costs of this suit against the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Proof of Breach — Party Alleging Breach Must Prove Failure to Perform Contractual Promise
A party alleging breach of contract must prove that the other party failed to perform a promise contained in the contract; ambiguity in the sale agreement and failure to demonstrate what specific obligation was breached will result in the claim failing.
Contract Law — Sale of Land — Payment of Purchase Price — No Contingency Established
Where a purchaser has not completed payment of the purchase price and has not demonstrated that the obligation to pay the balance was contingent upon any condition to be fulfilled by the vendor, the purchaser cannot succeed in a claim for breach of contract.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Burden of Proof — He Who Asserts Must Prove
The law requires that he who alleges or asserts must prove his or her allegations and must prove the existence of an alleged fact.
Contract Law — Remedies — Refund of Deposit — Interest Rather Than Market Value
Where a sale agreement does not crystallize, the appropriate remedy is to order a refund of the deposit with interest thereon, rather than a refund calculated at current market value.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Birungi_v_Kibuuka_(HCCS_514_of_2020)_[2023]_UGHCLD_178_(30_June_2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.